Democrats complain whenever someone says "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party". They claim that "Democrat Party" is ungrammatical, is somehow offensive and insulting, and that the rest of us are obligated to follow their lead. Wrong on all t by Richard in Japan
(conservative)
Saturday, April 30, 2011
We All Know … That "Democratic" Is an Adjective
But it's not!
Every few years Democrats complain about someone getting the name of their party wrong. "It's the 'Democratic Party'," they say, "not the 'Democrat Party'." "Democratic primary". "Democratic president". "Democratic voter/senator/issue/victory". They claim 1) to have grammar on their side, 2) that "Democrat Party" is somehow offensive and insulting, and that 3) the rest of us are under some obligation to use the term of their choosing.
Wrong on all three counts!
In reverse order:
3) I'm not at all inclined to give in to political correctness, especially for people who never hesitate to call their opponents every name in the book. I would take Democrats much more seriously on this question if they would stop calling pro-lifers "anti-choice". The party that still chuckles at references to "Teabaggers" really doesn't have the moral authority to criticize anyone else over namecalling. When they stop calling the GOP the party of racism and tax cuts for the wealthy, I'll stop saying "Democrat Party". Until then, I refuse to grant anyone veto power over my vocabulary.
2) The Web is awash in articles protesting how offensive Democrats find the word, each more preposterous than the last. Hendrik Hertzberg (August 7, 2006) wrote "Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but 'Democrat Party' is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams 'rat'." (http://www.newyorker. com/archive/ 2006/08/07/060807 ta_talk_hertzberg) Say the word "democrat" to me, and I immediately associate it with America's long and proud tradition of representational democracy. Say the same word to Mr. Hertzberg, and he thinks of disease-carrying vermin. Likewise Ruth Marcus (November 22, 2006) culls three examples of George W.Bush using the contraband word during a political campaign: 'There are people in the Democrat Party who think they can spend your money far better than you can'; 'Raising taxes is a Democrat idea of growing the economy'; and '[T]he Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.' (http://www.washington post.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/ 2006/11/21/AR2006112101223.html) What Ms. Marcus fails to grasp is that in all three examples it was not Bush's use of the word "Democrat", but rather his description of Democrat policies, that constituted the real slam. Typically, Democrats are not equipped to argue substance, and must instead debate the nomenclature.
1) And so at last I come to my main theme: National Public Radio Ombudsman Alicia C. Shepard chose the grammar angle, (March 26, 2010) insisting "The proper name is the 'Democratic Party'. 'Democrat' is a noun and 'Democratic' is the adjective to describe the party." (http://www.npr.org/blogs /ombudsman /2010/03/since_when_did_it_become _the_d.html) She is of course, wrong. "Democratic" as in "Democratic Party" is not an adjective. It's a noun! As we all remember from third grade, a noun is the name of a person, place or thing; an adjective modifies the noun. ("Ivan the Terrible", "Big Mac", "Silly Putty" and "Scarlet Pimpernel" are famous names which contain adjectives, but they serve as part of the given name, rather than modifying the accompanying noun.) In this case, it's the name of a political party. A given name, which makes it a proper noun. Many commentators, as well as some of the dictionary sources I consulted, insist that it is incorrect for a proper noun like "Democrat" to appear before the noun "Party", and that both "Democrat" and "Democratic" therefore must be considered adjectives. There's simply no way to say this without sounding arrogant: ALL OF THOSE SOURCES ARE WRONG. It is not only possible, but common for a noun to modify another noun. "Airline pilot." "Pastry shop." "University professor." "Heart surgery." If I want to include "Democrat Party" in this list, who's to tell me I can't?
Not all conservatives employ this device. Rush Limbaugh and Newsmax seem never to miss an opportunity to say "Democrat". Ann Coulter and the late Bill Buckley, however, opt for "Democratic". As for me, I don't say it just to make Democrats mad, but I can't deny that it's an attractive side benefit. I will continue to say "Democrat Party"; Democrats may continue to correct me.
Search all you like through American history. You won't find any other political entity that inflects the ending to distinguish between the collective and the individual:
Republicans belong to the Republican Party, not the "Republicanic" Party.
Communists belonged to the Communist Party, not the "Communistic" Party.
Whigs belonged to the Whig Party, not the "Whigic" Party.
Libertarians belong to the Libertarian Party, not the "Libertarianic" Party.
Mugwumps belonged to the Mugwump Party, not the "Mugwumpic" Party.
Only Democrats believe there should be a different word. No surprise at all, really. Democrats have always had one rule for themselves and another rule for everybody else.
For years they have so soiled the word "liberal" -- a perfectly good word, of positive connotations -- with their wrong-headed ideas, most liberals take umbrage at the term, and insist on being called "progressive" instead. (A few years from now, that word will be similarly tainted, as will their alternative labels "moderate" and "centrist".) Now Democrats have ruined the word "Democrat" as well, and declare it anathema. On behalf of all democracy-loving Americans I say "If you are so insulted by the word 'Democrat', or 'liberal', or 'progressive' ... give it back to the rest of us." I for one would love to call myself a liberal Democrat, if only the words were not corrupted by association with the tried and failed policies of the Democrat party.
(c) Kublai Khan Unlimited 2011.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 0
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Richard in Japan only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Richard in Japan is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Nice article. However, as a principal in both the Republican and Libertarian Parties, my understanding is the Republican is an adjective for Republic, and the Libertarian is an adjective for a Liberty, an old legal term for a self-governing community without taxes, with juries etc. Democratic is the similar adjective for a Democracy, I believe.
Posted By: Natalie Schultz
Date: May 4, 2011 03:05:13 AM
Interesting article, but the accurate title is "Democrat is a NOUN!"
Those morons are trying to argue that the word "Party", as in Democrat Party, is the actual noun, when in fact it is not.
Proof: What Political Party are you registered under? A) Republican B) Democrat
You CANNOT replace a NOUN with an adjective and have it stand alone!
The easy test is by pluralising it.
Man, those Democrats (n.) sure are Morons (adj.)! They want to get all the "Democratics" (adj.) together and take over the world!
At least the Republicans (n.) don't think they should be called Republics (n.), even though that word also happens to be a noun. Too bad there is no such thing as a Republitocracy (n.)! Then we too can be wasting time arguing over whether we should be called "Republicrats" (n.) or "Republicratics" (adj.).
If Republitocracy (n.) actually WAS a word, then "Republic" would be the adjective DESCRIBING the FORM OF GOVERMENT which would be represented by Republicrats (n.). But, too bad, the NOUN is Republic, and the FORM OF GOVERNMENT is RepubliCAN, which just so happens to be both an adjective (as above) AND a noun, as in "I represent the Republican Party, therefore I am a Republican."
Perhaps a more pleasing and linguistically correct name for those Democrats (n.) would be Democracians (n.). A new word, yes, but that could be a legitimate term for the Representatives (n.) of a Democracy (n.)
Noun: A Person (Republican, Democrat), Place (Republic, Democracy) or thing (a Political Party), (the US Constitution).
Adjective: A descriptive word describing a noun.
For example: A conservative (adj.) Republican (n.). or: A libertarian (adj.) Republican (n.). or: A socialist (adj.) Democrat (n.).
Also: A constitutional (adj.) Conservative (n.). This would be a person who represents a Republic from a strict constitutional frame of mind (Ron Paul).
Also: A progressive (adj.) Democrat (n.). (Dennis Kucinich)
A socialist (adj.) registered as an Independent (n.). (Bernie Sanders). He normally calls himself a Socialist (n.).
Karl Marx is a Communist (n.).
Note that to be linguistically correct, only nouns are capitalized, and adjectives are lower-case. However, many people choose to capitalize both in order to highlight their beliefs.
A Libertarian (n.) is a person who represents a strictly limited form of our Constitutional-Republic. In this case "Constitution" is capitalized because it is a TITLE - the United States is a {Constitutional-Republic} - two hyphenated words, ONE NOUN!
If a person was to be generally speaking about a fictitious constitutional Republic, then "consitutional" is an adjective. The 'al' is only added to OUR form of Republic because it flows better when speaking. Technically it would be The United States is a constitutionally-protected (adj.) Republic (n.). But we are NOT just a constitutional Republic, we are a Republic (n.) protected by a SPECIFIC Constitution (n.). Therefore, the United States is a Constitutional-Republic.
Posted By: Natalie Schultz
Date: May 4, 2011 03:06:38 AM
Now, before the Libertarians jump down my throat ;) :
The only real difference between a hard-core Libertarian and a constitutional Conservative is how they interpret border security / immigration. A Libertarian argues from a Free Trade (legitimate Free Market Free Trade) "Benefit" perspective, whereas a constitutional Conservative argues from a National Defense / Economic "Cost" perspective.
Generally, the constitutional Conservative takes reality into account and does not pretend that the Welfare State will disappear anytime soon. Both admit that we do NOT currently have a truly Free Market, and that "Trade Deals" such as NAFTA and WTO are NOT truly Free Trade. (Nick Gillespie (Libertarian) vs. Ron Paul (Constitutional Conservative)).
A Conservative differs even more, on issues such as drugs (against legalization), abortion (wants government to interfere in private decisions, even though that goes against the 1st Amendment (Freedom of Religion)). A TRUE Conservative is AGAINST OFFENSIVE wars, imperialism, nation-building and so on. They DO believe in a strong National Defense. (example: Pat Buchanan)
A Liberal or liberal-Libertarian promotes ideas such as "Social / Equal Justice" even if it goes against the beliefs and freedoms of INDIVIDUAL Americans.
A Liberal will argue that ALL Americans must PAY for things they do NOT believe in, such as Federal funding of abortion, acceptance of Gay "Marriage," Universal Healthcare.
A liberal-Libertarian argues for the same things ("fairness"), just NOT having the taxpayers fund those things. Many liberal-Libertarians are just as vocal and in-your-face and completely close-minded and offended by anyone who has a differing opinion on "Social Values."
I said "many," not "all" - so don't even think about jumping down my throat - this statement is based on experience!
A hard-core Libertarian and a Constitutional Conservative separates their own "beliefs" and "opinions" from what should be the LAW. A Libertarian may be personally pro-life (Judge Napolitano) OR pro-choice, but would neither OUTLAW nor allow taxpayer FUNDING of abortion. Most Constitutional Conservatives are pro-life, but as far as the LAW is concerned, agree with Libertarians. Libertarians want to legalize drugs for use by adults, Constitutional Conservatives also want to legalize drugs for use by adults (although most of them are against drugs, they understand it is hypocritical for Republicans to defend alcohol and cigarettes but not "drugs," plus it would make the country much safer by ending the Mexican Drug Cartels, and benefit the economy by letting farmers grow marijuana, so Farm Subsidies would end, and a portion of the taxes raised from recreational drug sales can go towards rehab instead of taxpayers funding prisons and hospitals). On "Marriage" hard-core Libertarians and Constitutional Conservatives believe that "Marriage" is a RELIGIOUS Institution, and the Government must STAY OUT of it at all costs - "Marriage" is NOT in the Constitution! NO recognition of ANY marriage, gay / straight / polygamous or otherwise. ALL INDIVIDUALS must be treated EQUALLY, regarding Benefits (inheritance), Rights (visiting partners in hospitals), and Taxation - NO "Married filing jointly" / Marriage Penalty.
Note that a "Social Conservative" will argue that the Government must recognize "Marriage" as between one man and one woman, and defends the "Defense of Marriage Act" on the grounds of "National Stability," that the nation's moral foundation will "collapse" without the Federal Government regulating marriage. (ex: Evangelical Religious Right)
They BLINDLY IGNORE the Constitution and try to twist it to fit their world-view. They are JUST AS GUILTY as LIBERALS on this account. I DO NOT want the Government in my personal life / bedroom / doctor's office AT ALL!
A blue-blood Neo-Conservative is a Liberal Zionist WAR-MONGER who wants a New World Order and to spread "Democracy" at all costs. They are liberal on fiscal and social issues, but keep their mouths shut in public because the Conservatives and Republican Party, which they have usurped since the 1970's, would have NEVER accepted them / kicked them out long ago. (examples: Irving and Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer)
A "confused" Conservative is a Conservative on domestic issues, a Neo-Con on foreign policy issues. (example: Sean Hannity - agrees with Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul on all domestic issues, vehemently disagrees on foreign policy issues.)
Simply put, the Neo-CONS have DESTROYED the Republican Party.
George W. Bush is a Socially Conservative Neo-CON.
Dick Cheney is a Conservative Neo-CON.
Most Democrats in congress are Liberal Neo-CONS.
Al Gore is a typical Limosine-Liberal Hypocrite. As are Nancy Pelosi, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jamie Dimon, Goldman Sachs executives, Jeff Immelt.
Hillary Clinton, I'm not sure - she may willingly pay the excess taxes she demands for her "Social Justice" agenda. But Bill, nope, I bet he actually argues against such tax hikes at home ;)
Bill Clinton was the last of the Rational Democrats - the likes of JFK. They actually had brains and understood that CUTTING taxes increases revenues and creates new investments and jobs, and increasing spending only leads to National Debt that can NEVER be repaid even if ALL the "Rich" are taxed at 100%
--
I consider myself to be a libertarian-leaning Constitutional Conservative who is only registered as a Republican in NY because we have closed primaries (and I vote in every one even though my candidates never win, so I vote Third-Party in the general elections).
Note that I CHOOSE to capitalize the word "Constitutional" even though that is technically incorrect.
--
FACT: A Democracy is a form of government in which the majority rules over the minority. Democratic is the adjective describing such a government under which the Individual gives up their Rights to the vocal (powerful) majority. A Democrat is a person who argues that the Individual must give up their Unalienable Individual Human Rights in favor of the "general welfare," a term that varies widely in meaning over different periods of time and under which the Individual becomes a slave to the Special Interests and Powers that Be.
In a Representaive Democracy the people elect Representatives to represent them in the government, but there are NO restrictions on those representatives to protect the Individuals. INDIVIDUALS have NO RIGHTS in a Democracy!
In a "Democracy" there can NEVER be true Freedom of Speech / expression because it is technically GANG RULE, so in order to physically protect individuals, the government forces ALL Individuals to Shut Up (vocally) or be shut-up in the slammer!
FACT: The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL-REPUBLIC: WE, The People are represented within the government by elected Representatives, who are FORBIDDEN to ever take away the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS guaranteed to the INDIVIDUAL Citizens by the United States Constitution.
In a Republic THE PEOPLE retain control OVER the Government, and if that government usurps control FROM The People, We have the RIGHT to REVOLT and TAKE IT BACK!
The Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
--
BTW: All the rules governing the complexities of English grammar are directly derived from German grammar. The difference is that in German the rules are clear-cut and even today if you mess with them you completely change the meaning of a sentence / word. English shifted a few times (Old to Middle to Modern) and along the way some rules were dropped, and MANY were blurred by over-simplification. This is what causes a LOT of confusion - the rules still apply, but word-order and sentence-structure has changed in many cases, so trying to correctly compose a sentence is actually more difficult than in German where there is no vaguery.
For example WHO vs. WHOM: A German would NEVER confuse these two words because it is impossible.
With whom are you speaking? = Mit wem sprichst du?
Who are you speaking with? = Does NOT exist in German!
A Google translation gives: Wer bist du im Gespräch mit? This literally makes NO SENSE! "Speaking" becomes the subject, not the person (who) on the other line. Worse, "gespräch" isn't even a word, as far as I know - that is a weird version of the Future-perfect (gesprocken crossed with sprächen). I CANNOT translate this sentence!
Maybe a German could understand Wer bist du sprechen mit? (a direct translation of Who are you speaking with?)
I am speaking with John. = Ich bin mit John sprechen.
With whom are you going? = Mit wem gehst du mit?
"WHO are you going with" does NOT exist in German!
I am going with John. = Ich bin mit John gehen. or: Ich werde mit John gegangen (I will be going with John).
I haven't used German in years, but it was a great way to remember English grammar rules!
--
I may be a Vegetarian, but I'll Defend to the Death your Right to Eat Meat!
